Monica Galvan v. State
13-14-00059-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Monica Galvan was charged with aggravated assault and related counts in a multi-count indictment.
- The jury found Galvan guilty of aggravated assault; evidence included driving intoxicated and a physical altercation with a passenger.
- A collision occurred with a bulldozer, causing serious bodily injury to Manka and Salinas.
- Cepeda’s trial testimony described highly erratic driving prior to the collision; the data recorder showed brakes not depressed in the eight seconds before impact.
- The State admitted Galvan’s intoxication evidence; the court allowed consideration of intoxication with recklessness.
- Post-submission briefing and appellate briefing analyzed sufficiency of the evidence and conduct after the collision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence despite conflicting testimony? | Galvan argues conflicts negate sufficiency. | State argues jury credibility resolves conflicts; evidence supports verdict. | Sufficient evidence supports the conviction. |
| Irrelevance of conflicting trial testimony to sufficiency review? | Galvan claims elevated conflicts render testimony irrelevant. | State contends all evidence viewed in the light most favorable supports the verdict. | Evidence viewed favorably supports sufficiency; conflicting testimony irrelevant. |
| Variance between indictment and proof—material or not? | Galvan argues a variance exists between pleading and proof. | State; variance for a result-of-conduct offense is non-material per Johnson/Wortham analysis. | No material variance; proof supports conviction. |
| Adequacy of proof for multiple disjunctive means of recklessness? | Galvan argues disjunctive means could create inconsistency. | State contends jury could rely on any proven means; record supports recklessness. | Sufficiency found; multiple means supports conviction. |
| Was the verdict non-unanimous due to disjunctive charges? | Galvan challenges the unanimity of the verdict. | State argues the charge did not render the verdict non-unanimous. | Issue lacks merit; verdict proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (jury credibility governs witness testimony and conflicts are for the jury to resolve)
- Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (exclusive province to assess credibility and reconcile conflicts)
- Trepanier v. State, 940 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. App.-Austin, 1997) (jury may accept or reject testimony of any witness; conflicts resolved for verdict)
- Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (reviewing court defers to fact-finder’s resolution of conflicts)
- Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (when inferences conflict, review defers to trier of fact’s resolution)
- Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (standard for sufficiency review; evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (overruled on other grounds; sufficiency framework)
- Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (reiteration on credibility and sufficiency)
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (variance in pleading-proof for aggravated assault not always material)
- Wortham v. State, 412 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explanation of Johnson variance rule)
- Rubio v. State, 203 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2006) (non-unanimous verdict arguments rejected)
- Pease v. State, No. 03-06-00369-CR, 2007 WL 2274879 (Tex. App.-Austin 2007) (non-unanimous verdict challenges rejected)
- Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (caution against conflating sufficiency with inconsistent verdicts)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (inconsistent verdicts; independence of sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard of review for sufficiency is hypothetical rational fact-finder)
- Robinson v. State, 46 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (hypothetical rational-finder standard for sufficiency)
- Ruiz v. State, 641 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1982) (in multi-count verdict, focus on counts of conviction)
- Hart v. State, 89 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (circumstantial evidence can establish intoxication; mental state inferred)